more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
Essentialists do not accept the standard position, which says necessity is a priori, and contingency is a posteriori. They have a radically new category: the necessary a posteriori. The laws of nature are, for example, both necessary and a posteriori.
Clarification
'Necessary a posteriori' has to be true, but is known from experience
Gist of Idea
Essentialists say natural laws are in a new category: necessary a posteriori
Source
Brian Ellis (The Philosophy of Nature: new essentialism [2002], Ch.6)
Book Ref
Ellis,Brian: 'The Philosophy of Nature: new essentialism' [Acumen 2002], p.109
A Reaction
Based on Kripke. I'm cautious about this. Presumably God, who would know the essences, could therefore infer the laws a priori. The laws may follow of necessity from the essences, but the essences can't be known a posteriori to be necessary.
| 8856 | Quine's indispensability argument said arguments for abstracta were a posteriori [Quine, by Yablo] |
| 2796 | For Quine the only way to know a necessity is empirically [Quine, by Dancy,J] |
| 5476 | Essentialists say natural laws are in a new category: necessary a posteriori [Ellis] |
| 9174 | It is necessary that this table is not made of ice, but we don't know it a priori [Kripke] |
| 2408 | Kripke has demonstrated that some necessary truths are only knowable a posteriori [Kripke, by Chalmers] |
| 4960 | "'Hesperus' is 'Phosphorus'" is necessarily true, if it is true, but not known a priori [Kripke] |
| 4966 | Theoretical identities are between rigid designators, and so are necessary a posteriori [Kripke] |
| 14631 | How can you show the necessity of an a posteriori necessity, if it might turn out to be false? [Jackson] |
| 16421 | Critics say there are just an a priori necessary part, and an a posteriori contingent part [Stalnaker] |
| 15171 | The necessary a posteriori is statements either of identity or of essence [Sidelle] |